Park Regional Corp. v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission of Town of Windsor

Decision Date10 December 1957
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesThe PARK REGIONAL CORPORATION et al. v. TOWN PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION OF The TOWN OF WINDSOR. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Ralph C. Dixon, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Frank J. Monchun, Hartford, with whom was Harry Cooper, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before WYNNE, C. J., and BALDWIN, DALY, KING and MURPHY, JJ.

KING, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from the action of the defendant commission in denying the plaintiffs' application for a zone determination to permit the construction of a regional shopping center on their land.

Prior to April 6, 1955, the plaintiffs' land apparently had been zoned for residence purposes. The plaintiffs make no claim that its zone status, prior to that date, permitted the erection of the proposed shopping center. On that day the defendant, after a duly advertised public hearing, adopted a so-called comprehensive plan of development embodied in a resolution and a set of maps, one of which included the plaintiffs' land. That land, on the map, is designated 'RS,' which the accompanying legend describes as 'area dedicated for a regional shopping center under special conditions.' In paragraph seven of the resolution, it was provided 'that a portion of town be reserved for a Regional Shopping Center, the effective date of any rezoning approved after duly publicized public hearings to be simultaneous with the start of construction.' In paragraph nine, the defendant approved the 'generalized Plan of Development' set forth in the resolution. Thereafter, the defendant and the town council held a series of public hearings preparatory to the adoption of a new set of zoning regulations and maps, including a map showing the plaintiffs' land. After a public hearing on July 29, 1955, the defendant approved proposed new zoning regulations for the town and a new zoning map, the whole to be presented to the town council for adoption as an ordinance. On August 22, 1955, the town council approved and legally adopted the new zoning regulations and map, to become effective on September 9, 1955.

On the sheet of the zoning map, the plaintiffs' land appears uncolored and unlabeled, and the spaces so treated on the map are explained in the legend on another sheet as 'Public & semi-public land not subject to zoning. Temporar[il]y unzoned.' On 'Plan of Development' or 'Zoning Maps' issued as of December 20, 1955, and, in revised form, as of June 12, 1956, the plaintiffs' land is marked 'NZ,' which, according to the applicable legend is land 'not subject to zoning and special zone reserves according to general plan.' On one sheet of the general zoning map there is a schedule of certain zoning regulations applicable in seven residential zones, two business zones and two industrial zones. By the zoning regulations and map, areas were zoned for business use and so marked, but the plaintiffs' land was not placed in any business zone. It was marked as aforesaid. The zoning regulations contained no provisions governing the use of land not zoned or temporarily unzoned. They affirmatively listed the uses permitted in the respective zones but did not list any uses for an 'N Z' area.

On March 7, 1956, the defendant, at an executive meeting, set forth the conditions for the establishment of a business zone at the Park Regional Shopping Center, which was the plaintiffs' land. Included in these conditions were the following: '5. Planning Commission to advertise a public hearing for the purpose of establishing a business zone. 6. Tentative zone change (if granted) subject to the start of building construction within specified time and in accordance with plans approved by the Commission.' Subsequently, at an executive meeting of the defendant on March 14, 1956, it was voted to correct the minutes of the meeting on March 7 to read 'zone determination' in place of 'zone change.'

By application dated March 29, 1956, the plaintiffs applied for 'a determination of zone, for an area formerly zoned Residential, to Business II (Regional Shopping Center)' and stated that they were 'now ready to meet all the conditions set forth for the establishment of a business zone at the Park Regional Shopping Center.' At the public hearing on the application on April 30, 1956, they requested that their land, 'presently classed as NZ, * * * be changed to B-2.' They referred to the action sought as 'a change of this zone to a B-2 zone.' Both the plaintiffs and the defendant followed the usual procedure for a change of zone, including the filing of petitions and presentation of speakers for and against the proposed change and the introduction of documentary evidence purporting to show its desirability. The petitions filed in support of the plaintiffs' application recited that the signers were in favor of a B-2 zoning designation for the plaintiffs' land. At an executive session on May 9, 1956, the defendant approved the plaintiffs' application by a three to two vote of its membership, but denied the application on the ground that it could be granted only by a unanimous vote because of the provisions of the special act, enacted in 1931, authorizing zoning in the town of Windsor. 21 Spec.Laws, p. 277, § 5.

The basic claims of the plaintiffs are twofold. In the first place, they claim that they needed no change of zone nor determination of zone because the classification of their property made by the defendant in July of 1955 and approved by the town council effective September 9, 1955, gave them the right to use their land for any purpose whatsoever. This claim, if sustained, would of course be decisive of this appeal. Secondly, they claim that if their first contention is not sustained, the defendant was in error in construing the special act as requiring, under the facts of this case, a unanimous vote of the defendant's entire membership.

The establishment of zones in a community by a duly authorized body is basically a legislative process, although local in its scope. In the interpretation of the language of a legislative enactment, the question is as to the expressed intention, that is, the intention of the legislative body 'as found from the words employed to make it manifest.' Lee Bros. Furniture Co. v. Cram, 63 Conn. 433, 438, 28 A. 540, 541. The actual intent, as a state of mind, of the members of a legislative body is immaterial, even if it were ascertainable. Ibid.; State ex rel. Pettigrew v. Thompson, 135 Conn. 228, 233, 63 A.2d 154; Mad River Co. v. Town of Wolcott, 137 Conn. 680, 688, 81 A.2d 119.

The zoning regulations and accompanying map apparently covered all of the property in the town. At least they covered that of the plaintiffs and all other property in the same general area. Since on the zoning map the plaintiffs'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • State v. Hughes
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • March 4, 1965
    ...525, 527; see Toll Gate Farms, Inc. v. Milk Regulation Board, 148 Conn. 341, 344, 170 A.2d 883; Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 144 Conn. 677, 682, 136 A.2d 785; McAdams v. Barbieri, supra, 415-16, 418-19, 123 A.2d 182; General Tires, Inc. v. United Aircraft Corp......
  • Stamford Ridgeway Associates v. Board of Representatives of City of Stamford
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 3, 1990
    ...... on separate zone changes contained in one zoning application or whether the board of ... Stamford approved a comprehensive rezoning plan for large areas of the city, on a neighborhood ...v. Public Utilities Commission, 170 Conn. 1, 4, 363 A.2d 1386 (1975). We ...         In Muller v. Town Planning & Zoning Commission, 145 Conn. 325, 328, ... SG:HMM . cc: Board Members . Corp. Counsel Jay Sandak . John Smith, P & Z Director ... twenty percent of certain areas of lots.' Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan and Zoning ......
  • Sanzone v. Board of Police Com'rs of City of Bridgeport
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 11, 1991
    ...intention of the legislative body 'as found from the words employed to make it manifest.' " Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 144 Conn. 677, 682, 136 A.2d 785 (1957). We seek the intent of the legislature "not in what it meant to say, but in what it did say." Daily......
  • Clark v. Town Council of Town of West Hartford
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 24, 1958
    ...see Wolfpit-Villa Crest Ass'n, Inc., v. Zoning Commission, 144 Conn. 560, 561, 135 A.2d 732; Park Regional Corporation v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 144 Conn. 677, 680, 136 A.2d 785. We conclude that the trial court's decision holding, in effect, that the council's action was constituti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT